Top Five Stories of 2017

We've compiled our top five stories of 2017. We'll be updating this page every Tuesday and Thursday until we reach #1. Subscribeto our e-newsletter to receive these updates in your mailbox.

#1: California Reduces Self-Regulation of Lawyers, Sets Precedent for Other States

After Responsive Law testified multiple times to the State Bar of California, the CaliforniaLegislature, and the California Supreme Court, those bodies agreed to change the membership of the State Bar Board of Trustees—the body that regulates the legal profession—so that lawyers no longer choose their own regulators and nearly half of all trustees must be non-lawyers.

California is just the tip of the iceberg for this issue. In 27 states, bar associations regulate the legal profession without adequate supervision from the elected branches of government. With our win in California, it will be easier to convince those other stubborn state bars that they need to be accountable to the public.

#2: State Bars Issue Mixed Rulings on Fixed-Fee Legal Services

This year may prove to be a watershed in the bar’s treatment of web portals that provide access to fixed fee legal services. Multiple state bars, including Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey, issued ethics opinions in 2017 addressing whether lawyers may participate in programs where a company advertises their services for discrete tasks—such as creating a will, reviewing a lease, or filing for an uncontested divorce—and charges a fixed flat fee for those services.

Responsive Law has spoken on behalf of consumers in all of these states. North Carolina’s proposed ethics opinion, supported by Responsive Law, provides reasonable consumer protections while allowing lawyers to participate in such services. In Virginia, the bar modified its opinion when we pointed out that they might be subject to antitrust suit for issuing it as written. And the New Jersey Supreme Court is considering our appeal of an ethics opinion prohibiting lawyers from offering their services through these portals.

#3: ABA, States Consider Changes to Lawyer Advertising Rules

The American Bar Association is considering a proposal to reform its model rules for lawyer advertising. The current rules place unnecessary restrictions on truthful advertising that not only hinder the lawyer's ability to advertise her services, but also the consumer's ability to find the right lawyer for her legal matter. The amendments would streamline the rules to focus more on the truthfulness of lawyer advertising and solicitation and less on the form that such advertising takes.

Responsive Law testified to the ABA in support of these proposals on behalf of modern consumers who would like to easily access information about lawyers at the touch of a button. Virginia has already adopted similar rules, and other states are expected to follow. You can read more about the proposed amendments here.

#4: Florida Bar Tries To Shut Down Popular Ticket-Fighting Service

TIKD, a popular new app for fighting traffic tickets, has been under investigation by the Florida Bar for most of 2017. The Bar claims to be investigating whether TIKD is committing the unauthorized practice of law. However, cease-and-desist letters sent by the bar to lawyers working with TIKD show that the bar's main motivation is to prevent competition for the state's established traffic law firms.

TIKD filed a federal antitrust suit against the Florida Bar in November, claiming the Bar was unfairly using its regulatory power in ways prohibited by the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC.

You can read more about TIKD here, as Responsive Law continues to monitor the case in 2018.

#5: Responsive Law Director Named One of Law's Top Innovators

Responsive Law Executive Director Tom Gordon was named to the 2017 Fastcase 50, a listing of the law’s “smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, & leaders.”

In naming him to the list, Fastcase said, “Tom Gordon is an unwavering advocate for legal access and the rights of the legal consumer.... [H]e is often the only one speaking on behalf of legal consumers.”